Ken Hall: What could happen to wireless spectrum

Thursday

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:00 AM

Don't get too excited about that free Wi-Fi rumor. The more details that emerge following a Washington Post story over the weekend, the more it seems clear that the world will not soon be turning into one big Starbucks.

Ken Hall

Don't get too excited about that free Wi-Fi rumor. The more details that emerge following a Washington Post story over the weekend, the more it seems clear that the world will not soon be turning into one big Starbucks.

I know people who have Wi-Fi and people who do not. In the second group, and perhaps in the first as well, I suspect that there are some who do not have a complete grasp of what Wi-Fi is or does.

It's simple. Wi-Fi is magic. It lets you make free calls on your smartphone or watch baseball games on your iPad. You pay for it through your cable bill if you have Wi-Fi at home or through your taxes if you use the Wi-Fi signal at a library or other public building.

At Starbucks, 2 cents of the cost of every venti skinny half-caf latte goes to paying for the router, modem and cable.

You can get to the Internet in other ways, but we're not talking about that this week. And that's because the big news in the Washington Post concerned something called a wireless spectrum auction. Because the airwaves (where all the magic travels) are public, the government decides who gets to pay to use them. Some go to television stations or networks while some are left open so that we can tell our garage doors to go up or down.

If you wondered what happened to Channel 34, you are halfway toward understanding the auction being conducted by the Federal Communications Commission. Most everybody these days gets digital signals over cable or satellites. That frees up the space once occupied by that upper tier of channels.

Big communications companies are the likely buyers, but there is a question about whether some space will be unsold and whether buffer zones between the spaces — which are needed to avoid interference between signals — could be smaller.

Depending on the answer to those questions, it is possible that there might be some tempting free parts of the wireless spectrum that might be used by someone who might manage to get money, public or otherwise, and might then provide free access to the Internet.

If so, it could help the United States catch up with the rest of the world where access to Wi-Fi is more universal and less costly. Those who like that idea believe that it could increase freedom of expression and support innovation, thus helping this country be more competitive. Those who don't think that we can do just as well by selling most of the spectrum and letting the communications companies who buy it then sell access to Wi-Fi through their equipment.

It probably comes down to whether you have more faith in the government or Time Warner. And while I reserve judgment on that, I did learn that my initial inclination to favor the movement toward free and universal Wi-Fi comes with a label. It makes me a "cyber-socialist." I like the way that sounds.